Actually, the Counterstrike Variation, 9...c5, against the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense, leads to some very interesting tactics. I will post more once I get back from Boston. However, I won quite a few games with White in this line.

I don't agree entirely with Dennis Monokroussos. The analysis fails to take into account what Tim McGrew calls the "Caltrop Coefficient", i.e. where one side faces somewhat more pitfalls than the other and the payback for one side deviating from correct play is greater than the other. In many gambits, it is genuinely easier for the defender to go wrong than the attacker at club level. The question of whether it is better to start with main lines from an early stage depends on whether the player has strong aspirations to become a GM.

Btw I think 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 deserves "?!", not "??", and I think the same of 1.d4 e5 which is sometimes given a "?". Both of those openings are often met with harmless replies in OTB games, and lead to an assessment somewhere in the region of += to +/- with best play, not +- as Dennis gives for the Latvian.

An example of an "?" opening is the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) which is at least -/+ with best play and probably more.

8.0-0 in the Euwe Defence to the BDG has quite a good caltrop coefficient, better than the Ryder Gambit (5.Qxf3) but I've seen nothing to challenge my view that its objective worth is somewhere between =+ and -/+ after 9...c6 or 9...c5. I think it probably deserves "?!" as well.

Some interesting comments in that blog, but very little about the BDG. Also 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Ne5 Qf6! has been played for centuries. Don't know why Monokroussos gives 2...f5 to question marks. I win with it in OTB tournaments.

Where have you been? After 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00! Nxd4 9 Kh1 is the Zilbermints Gambit. I assure you, BDGLover, while it is true computers may have all the answers, in a tournament game you cannot use them!The last tournament game I played, Zilbermints-Tica, 2010, saw White win convincingly. My point is simply that unlike in the Ryder Gambit (5 Qxf3) there are more opportunities for Black to go wrong.

Well, I think that 7...c5 is may be not the best. Literature gives 7...Nc6. Stefan Bücker's Kaissiber 8 gives it and concludes difficulties for Black after 8.a3 and equal but drawish play after 8.Qd2.So White has to proof that he can develop some initiative after 7...Nc6. That is the test for 7.Bd3.

That's what I call a convincing answer. Why discuss 7...Nc6 if 7...c5 8.dxc5 Nc6 9.Qd2 leads to an edge for White?

Look, BDGL, I am with many others very grateful for all the lines you provided. Still my instinct tells me that they somehow won't affect the evaluation of 7...Nc6. So you might begin to wonder if your quest is headed into the right direction.

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.GC Lichtenberg

Now as always with analysis, one can find better moves, but i think i have proved that in Tom Pursers BDG pages { article called " hard times" 5 th of April 2010} 7..c5 followed by 8.Qd2 is simply wrong, 8.dc is much better.I love Toms web site, but on this point i have to say that " Hard Times" ??? I think not.

Well, I think that 7...c5 is may be not the best. Literature gives 7...Nc6. Stefan Bücker's Kaissiber 8 gives it and concludes difficulties for Black after 8.a3 and equal but drawish play after 8.Qd2.So White has to proof that he can develop some initiative after 7...Nc6. That is the test for 7.Bd3.

A walk trough the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet.

Now as always with analysis, one can find better moves, but i think i have proved that in Tom Pursers BDG pages { article called " hard times" 5 th of April 2010} 7..c5 followed by 8.Qd2 is simply wrong, 8.dc is much better.I love Toms web site, but on this point i have to say that " Hard Times" ??? I think not.